Jump to content

Dallas officer kills man after mistaking apartment for her own, police say


Recommended Posts

Posted
18 minutes ago, staboner said:

Haven't been keeping up with thread - but dare shall I ask - she getting off or what?

If she wasn't a cop she'd be toast. I'd say it's 50/50 right now.

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Defenses are being used that would be laughed out of the courtroom if the defendant wasn't a cop with lawyers paid for by the cop union.

Not true.  Granted, an appointed lawyer may not be putting up this defense (heh) and certainly not the experts (heh heh), but the mistake of fact/self defense isn't rocket surgery.  It's there for you and for me.

And, in a lot of ways, it appears that maybe a different set of lawyers might have put up a better defense.  

Also, a plea might have been offered.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted

And the comeback reunion album

 

Innocent on Appeal

 

 

Then the album where they’ve taken it too far, the lead singer has left and they’ve replaced him with a sound alike they found in Bangalore and lead guitarists reborn cocaine addiction is really interfering with his diabetes.

 

Miscarriage of Justice.

  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

And the comeback reunion album

 

Innocent on Appeal

 

 

Then the album where they’ve taken it too far, the lead singer has left and they’ve replaced him with a sound alike they found in Bangalore and lead guitarists reborn cocaine addiction is really interfering with his diabetes.

 

Miscarriage of Justice.

Lulz. This is extremely specific. 

Posted

They’re getting deep on the jury charges, this is the shit that actually determines the outcome. And defense just got what seemed like a big win. Deciding on what the actual mistake of fact was along with what qualifies as self defense regarding immediate danger

Posted

Mistake of fact is about to become to murdering police what the Interstate Commerce Clause was to federal judicial overreach.  

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Goddamn, I was told the stupid Sooner couldn't understand the law.... 😁

I think the issue is that if there is any evidence, no matter how small, incredible, inconsistent and unbelievable, it is reversible error not to give the charge. The judge doesn't want to try it twice and neither does the state

Also the lawyer on WFAA said the same thing. She admitted causing his death intentionally.

The jury probably won't pick up on the fine details of the law and convict her of manslaughter  

Edited by 4th and 5
Posted

Something odd to me about including the Castle Doctrine instruction (on top of her, you know, not being in her Castle)...It only applies if the person enters your OCCUPIED habitation, which Botham didn't do, even allowing Guyger's mistake of fact. She knew she wasn't home when the "intruder" entered. So it can only apply if she was trying to stop the imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.  What evidence was entered that the person, even if an intruder, was imminently committing any of these offenses?

Posted
4 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Something odd to me about including the Castle Doctrine instruction (on top of her, you know, not being in her Castle)...It only applies if the person enters your OCCUPIED habitation, which Botham didn't do, even allowing Guyger's mistake of fact. She knew she wasn't home when the "intruder" entered. So it can only apply if she was trying to stop the imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.  What evidence was entered that the person, even if an intruder, was imminently committing any of these offenses?

None.

The Castle Doctrine instruction is REALLY troubling.

Posted

Can one of y'all lawdogs lay out what's going on with the charges/directions/castle doctrine stuff? I'm not watching any livestream and can't read between the lines of what y'all are saying.

Posted
6 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

a scintilla of evidence, you got that okie?

I was there from jump, you were the one saying manslaughter was a DV of NG, because intentional.

2 minutes ago, CHEF DIESEL said:

This prosecutor with the beard is hungry. Like him.

I actually am finding him pretty annoying and grating, and I'm much more inclined to the state's side of this case.

Posted
1 minute ago, TXSooner518 said:

I was there from jump, you were the one saying manslaughter was a DV of NG, because intentional.

I actually am finding him pretty annoying and grating, and I'm much more inclined to the state's side of this case.

WTF I did not say a directed verdict of not guilty, I said she shouldn't even get the charge, because there was no evidence to support it.

Posted
1 minute ago, TXSooner518 said:

 

I actually am finding him pretty annoying and grating, and I'm much more inclined to the state's side of this case.

Everything has been civilized thus far. Glad to see some serious sarcastic darkness mixed into all this.

Posted
Just now, 4th and 5 said:

WTF I did not say a directed verdict of not guilty, I said she shouldn't even get the charge, because there was no evidence to support it.

Sorry if I misstated, it's been a lot of pages, but I recalled that you said it would be overturned on appeal, because no evidence (not even a scintilla). 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...